The news that Britain’s Conservative and Liberal Coalition Government has just passed an Act which legalises same sex marriage may give our Parliament and our Prime Minister some food for thought.
The effect of Britain’s legislation, openly championed by Conservative Party Prime Minister David Cameron, takes the issue of same sex marriage out of the domain of some sinister left-wing plot to undermine “traditional values” and into the realm of an underpinning of conservative (small c) values. It places same sex couples on the same social and cultural level as heterosexual married couples – something which legal safeguards alone such as complete equality in superannuation for same sex couples does not do.
In the UK legislation religious organisations are allowed to choose whether or not they will perform same sex marriage ceremonies. Since according to the last UK census in 2010 68% of marriages in England and Wales were civil ceremonies (a similar percentage to Australia’s), it is likely that religious bodies are not going to be inundated with pressure to perform same sex ceremonies.
ABS statistics do not tell the full story but could be regarded as our most accurate measure of possible demand for same sex marriage. ABS says
The total of 33,714 same-sex couples in 2011 was 32% higher than the number in 2006. Same-sex couples increased both in number and as a proportion of all couples in every Census after 1996, when this information was first compiled. The increases may in part reflect greater willingness by people to identify themselves as same-sex couples in the Census. It could also to some extent reflect an increased awareness that counts of same-sex couples are compiled from the Census – giving more reason to supply this information.
If we extrapolate a figure of 60% or thereabouts for same sex couples who wish to marry in Australia out of an estimated 33 714 couples then we are looking at around 20 000 couples who may wish to marry. Or who may wish to have the choice, as all de-facto heterosexual couples potentially do.
Hardly a tsunami of social change and revolution.
The beauty of such a humane measure will be it is virtually cost free. The folk at Canprint the Government printer might have to change their marriage stationery templates. There might be some pencil chewing at the various state registries of BDMs.
But legislating for same sex marriage is virtually a cost-free legislative reform which will probably make at least 20 000 couples, their families, friends and their kids and potential kids happy with no repercussions for the rest of us.
For Prime Minister Julia Gillard, under pressure as she is from trogdolytes like Joe de Bruyn the solution is simple. We are even happy to draft some legislation for her for free. No scary stuff. No polygamy, polyandry or bestiality. The curtains won’t fade, the horses won’t be spooked.
All that is required is the following:
A Bill for an Act to amend Section 5(1) of the Marriage Act 1961.
that all words after the word “marriage” be replaced by other words.
The other words being
“…means the union of two adult persons to the exclusion of all others voluntarily entered into for life.“
The message: Conservative minorities drive agendas in Australia! If this vote was reflected in the September election the NO Coalition would be routed and confined to the history books. And yet it appears that we’re going to get at least three years of a Tea Party analogue trashing the economy of this country! TA not fit 2B PM!
Reblogged this on you said it….
Why can’t Governments let people choose there own destiny. At least Julia let her party have a conscious vote on this matter, but not DUMBO, his religious views???? would not allow this to happen. yet as a good Catholic boy going to Unii he and his mates practised Vatican roulette – his words not mine.
Can someone explain to me WTF believing in UFOs has to do with same-sex marriage?
I believe in both.
I’m somewhat divorced from the idea of UFO’s….. 😀
Next thing you know, people will be demanding to marry a hedgehog! On the moon! And in the nude, while eating shellfish and wearing a beanie!
Slippery slopes! Slippery slopes! Slippery slopes on the moon!
Won’t someone think of the slippery slopes on the moon!!!?!11!
. Do you go to Byron Bay often? 😉
The reason Gillard allowed a conscience vote was to make sure the bill would be defeated by the votes of the regressives and election-panickers (including herself) in her own party. Nothing noble about it.
More conservatives believe in *Illuminati* UFOs.
What’s wrong in marrying hedgehogs, if that is what they want. Of cause if would have to be informed consent from both. Not too sure how the hedgehog says “I do”
They say it in a rather prickly fashion.
Reblogged this on The Australian Independent Media Network.
Cu, I am not certain how a hedgehog or a Labrador (an often used example) would cope with the legal age of marriage, 17yrs with parental consent. Obtaining parental consent might prove a challenge.
SF Lyons, I beg to differ..the reason that Gillard allowed a conscience vote is so that the bill would have a chance. Abbott on the other hand said a straight out No, thereby ensuring the bill’s defeat.
My opinion is that marriage is between consenting adults and that the gender of the parties is immaterial. Gillard offered the option to appease certain churches that they would not be in contravention of anti-discrimination if those churches refused to marry certain couples. That is fine by me, after all you cannot force equality and fair-mindedness onto some..it’s best that they just rot in Hell instead.. I doubt if any same sex couples would want to force a church into marrying them anyway, spoils the party…
FEBRUARY 3, 2013 @ 2:13 PM
You don’t have to close down the topic Min, just ignore this thread all together and leave el gordo to post their nonsense to their hearts content. Shit el gordo could even debate el gordo.
You see el gordo’s problem by the response, and I bet el gordo doesn’t even know why it’s a nonsense and simplistically imbecilic.
tree, you’re trolling on the wrong thread.
If we legalize gay marriage next thing they will be doing is legalizing child marriage.
Most of the gay rights movement were pedophiles in the 80’s.You can look that up on wikipedia. They seperated not because child rape was wrong but because they thought the movement wouldnt go anywhere if they kept supporting it.
You can say that’s homophobic, but it’s a fact.
Well …Mr C will get his way, with a catlick in the big chair for a decade its a certainty gay marriage won’t happen in a hurry. Although in the antipodes we are known to slavishly follow affairs in the old dart.
And in the coming election the Liberals should safely win all the marginals in the Muslim ring around Sydney.
Mr. C do u know something that the rest of us don”t Pedophiles my fanny. Get a life.
You can look that up on wikipedia.
I did look it up on wikipedia and it said you were a liar.
If that was so, we would have child marriage now. Not that we have nort so had in the past. Even when I was young, twelve year olds were able to marry. Then it was raised to fourteen , then raised again to sixteen.
Child marriages, I believe were popular among royalty.
Why there are places where one can have more that one wife. Yes a ,marriage between a man and many woman.,
No, the concept of marriage is not set in stone.
In our society, it is unlikely that children will ever be able to marry, as one does not believe the child can give inform consent.
Mr C, all marriages in Australia come under the auspices of the Marriage Act 1961 and included in this Act are Offences (Part VII) which includes marriageable age, legal impediments, ability to consent. When same gender couples are permitted to marry in Australia they will have to comply with all aspects of The Act, the same as opposite gender couples must.
The Act is via the lawyer’s bible Austlii at: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/
Mr C, or is it Mr Ed?
Patricia B and,
. 😆 😆
“Mr C” has been trolling over at The Antibogan blog. Two IPs, one a total fake. Might be a good plan to send it back under the bridge.
Mr C exposed. 🙂
Migs, he’s definitly a C ….. and a mister ‘n all.. 😀
Let me unbackwardise that last line for you Mr C 😯 “, but it’s a fact. You can say that’s homophobic.” …… 😉
Cats and dogs will start living together, wolves will demand to be invited to dinner, the spon will infest men’s knees, Joe Hockey’s daughters will be husbandless! Bears will rise up and eat Cori Bernardi……Hang on that should be incentive enough to change the Marriage Act.
Seriously, though. it’s well past time to change the legislation and allow two adult persons to get married if they so desire. And if a few bears turn up at Cori Bernardi’s house…….. Bonus!
Jane there could be one thing worse than a couple of bears arriving at Bernardishouse or marrying a hedgehog and that’s marrying TA.
…Jane, and Abbott’s daughters will no longer be virgins! 😯
Patricia, don’t even think of it..my 89yr old Mum’s opinion (shoot her right whingers) is that TA is a scrawny, hairy little weed. I don’t think that Mum likes him. 😉
Min, you might not be able to marry a hedgehog or a labrador. But you should be able to find a Galapagos Tortoise who’s over the age of consent. And you should be able to catch him too.
Proto, excellent observation on both… regarding age of consent..and being able to catch him.
CU @1.28pm, rofl. As for child brides, Prince (later King) John’s wife was only 8 when they married and as you say, that sort of thing was very common among the aristocracy.
I believe child brides were returned to their parents’ house until they were 12, when it was legal to consummate the marriage under the watchful eyes of the whole bloody court, so the blood soaked sheet could be flapped in front of interested parties as proof of virginity.
It also wasn’t uncommon for first cousins to marry and one of the interminable Phillips of Spain married his niece. No wonder the Hapsburgs had receding chins and two heads!
And let’s not forget the Egyptian royals who married their siblings.
Min, in the case of a Labrador I guess the age would be in dog years. But I reckon you’d be hard put to get a crack at a meal though, given their prodigious appetite. lol
Wikipedia has confirmed what we’ve been saying for yonks, silkworm.
Patricia Bensted @1.45pm, gaahhh! What a ghastly mental image.
Min @1.49pm, oh noes!!! Their most precious gift! Stolen by……um gays getting married? BTW, your mum is a very fine judge of character, or the lack thereof and of physical attractiveness.
Hey Min I’m a scrawny ole 74 years old and I detest him
I’m 6’4″, 96 kilos, 35 years old and I detest him too.
I reckon we should start a facebook for SCRAWNY ABBOTT HATERS!!
Nah, do not hate him. Not substantial enough for that.
*cough* *splutter* *choke* 😛 😆
You didn’t mix up your numbers did you Migs – 4’6″, 35 kilos and 96 years old 😆